No it's not. The NYTimes engages in journalism, which is a particular way of gathering and presenting facts. Which to say, among other things, they rely on publicly available information, gathering facts on the ground and sources. Sources are people with information, often but not always powerful people. They check facts/claims but according to their viewpoint. Often they're a conduit for the powerful people they like to present their story, sometimes a true story, sometimes not. Which is to say they'll take claims that look like obvious bs and are actually bs stand IF these come from the sources they like and if they can't be clearly and directly be refuted. And smart, powerful people can craft such claims, indeed enhance their power by crafting such things.
I mean, I can see the comments are filled with places the NYtimes got it wrong. I think my link is good for showing the dynamics of how they got it wrong.
"Russian Bounties!!!" and all that jazz[1].
Edit: also should note, the over-the-top claims for "objectivity" of the OP is transparently full-of-shit. Just so you know I know. "Retraction bounties" - NYTimes may have it's problems but that's never how journalism worked.